Cupertino City Council
August 29, 2022

Cupertino Housing Element Update 2023 – 2031 Public Comments for Sites Inventory August 29, 2022

Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Mapping Total
Support
Quotient
A-
26a 1 Yes North Vallco Park 323 6 1 9 3 19 32%
B-
24a 1 Yes
Vallco Shopping
District 257 19 3 19 1 42 45%
C-9a 1 North Blaney 61 15 5 5 4 29 52%
D-
11a 1 Yes South Blaney 65 29 5 47 6 87 33%
D-
11b 1 37 15 1 2 5 23 65%
E-
26a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(East)
133 7 1 4 2 14 50% E-
18b 1 32 6 0 4 2 12 50% E-
18c 2 Yes 0 6 1 4 2 13 46% E-
18d 2 Yes 0 6 0 3 2 11 55%
F-
16a 2 Heart of the City
(Central)
0 5 1 3 1 10 50%
F-
16b 2 Yes 0 8 0 2 1 11 73%
F-16c 2 Yes 0 8 1 1 1 11 73%
G-
15a 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(Crossroads)
0 14 2 1 3 20 70%
G-
15b 2 Yes 0 13 0 1 3 17 76%
G-
15c 2 0 9 1 0 4 14 64%
G-
15d 2 0 8 0 2 3 13 62%
G-
15e 2 0 7 1 0 3 11 64%
G-
15f 2 0 6 0 1 7 86%
G-
15g 2 0 7 0 1 3 11 64%
H-
19a 1 Yes Homestead & Stelling
Gateway
6 5 2 1 2 10 50%
H-
19b 1 Yes 21 10 1 0 2 13 77%
Cupertino Housing Element Update 2023 – 2031 Public Comments for Sites Inventory August 29, 2022
H-
20a 1 45 14 1 2 17 82%
H-
20b 1 228 12 1 3 1 17 71%
H-
20c 1 167 8 1 0 1 10 80%
I-14a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(West) (was 3a) 22 11 4 8 3 26 42%
J-23a 1 Yes
South De Anza
50 10 2 2 3 17 59%
J-23b 1 66 9 1 5 2 17 53%
J-23c 2 Yes 0 8 2 0 3 13 62%
J-23d 1 Yes 121 8 1 4 4 17 47%
J-23e 2 0 7 2 0 4 13 54%
J-23f 2 0 8 1 0 4 13 62%
J-23g 1 26 7 0 1 3 11 64%
J-23h 1 20 7 1 0 2 10 70%
J-23i 1 67 6 0 1 4 11 55%
J-23j 1 43 6 1 0 4 11 55%
J-23k 1 46 8 1 0 3 12 67%
J-23l 1 24 12 0 0 2 14 86%
K-6a 1 Yes
Jollyman
20 18 4 21 3 46 39%
K-6b 1 Yes 23 13 0 7 3 23 57%
K-6c 1 Yes 0 7 1 7 3 18 39%
K-6d 1 Yes 21 6 0 7 3 16 38%
L-8a 2
Monta Vista South
0 10 3 10 2 25 40%
L-8b 1 6 12 1 5 2 20 60%
L-8c 1 21 11 1 2 1 15 73%
L-8d 2 2 8 1 1 2 12 67%
M-7a 1 Yes Monta Vista North 73 22 5 89 3 119 18%
M-7b 2 0 15 3 10 2 30 50%
N-
13a 1 Yes Bubb Road 23 11 4 12 4 31 35%
O-4a 1 Homestead Villa 12 13 0 1 2 16 81%
P-1a 1
Creston-Pharlap
13 26 4 4 5 39 67%
P-1b 1 10 17 6 1 5 29 59%
P-1c 1 8 14 1 2 5 22 64%
1,088 58% Average

A 26a: 10989 N Wolfe Road et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Unhappy 9
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
NO NOT INCLUDE the hotel that was approved. REMOVE the hotel parcel out of the Housing Element.

This borders Linnet Lane which is residential. Please ensure height is max of 30 ft.

This location should have high density housing because of it's proximity to Apple, freeways, retail, etc. I would like to see 1000+ homes here like there will be at Vallco
This is shown on the latest Recommended Sites listing July 28, to be a Tier 2 location. Recommend moving to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. Discussion at the Joint Planning and Housing Commission made it clear that various methods, including keeping some of the businesses is possible. Up to 373.5 homes were estimated with 30 DU with around 9 acres of property.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
59:31 pm Happy
This site makes a lot of sense. Near a lot of hotels, so doesn't look out of place. glose to transit
Aug 02 22 08:
09:52 pm Happy
A site bordering De Anza Blvd seems fine for higher density housing.

Aug 04 22 12:
43:31 pm Happy
This area is perfect to support higher density housing because it is close to everything
Aug 05 22 04:
36:23 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 14 22 08:
00:25 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 05:
11:55 pm Happy
Work with the owners and Sand Hill Properties on a
transformation of Wolfe Rd. into a stunning “complete streets” gateway.

Aug 02 22 09:
53:18 pm Neutral
Jul 28 22 07:
38:33 pm Unhappy Too dense
Jul 28 22 07:
38:57 pm Unhappy
Jul 28 22 07:
54:36 pm Unhappy Too dense
Jul 29 22 10:
33:53 am Unhappy NO again more traffic and people.

Jul 29 22 05:
36:04 pm Unhappy too dense
Jul 29 22 06:
46:32 pm Unhappy too dense
Aug 03 22 11:
08:06 am Unhappy traffic congestion
Aug 03 22 11:
07:56 pm Unhappy
Isn't this Cupertino Village where Ranch 99 grocery store is? This should be maintained as is. It's a great place to come shop, have a meal and hang out. Don't build housing on this parcel.

Aug 14 22 08:
06:16 pm Unhappy
Jul 28 22 09:
00:07 pm
This site makes a lot of sense. Near a lot of hotels, so doesn't look out of place. Close to transit and other amenities.

Jul 29 22 06:
49:17 pm
B 24a: Vallco Shopping District
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 19
Neutral 3
Unhappy 19
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
The map shows this to be the Simeon property which was discussed at the Joint Planning and Housing Commission to be suitable for 100% affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jun 24 22 01:
44:22 pm Happy
Dense housing in Cupertino is desperately needed and this is a prime spot to build hundreds of units. It'll be nice to drive northbound on 280 some day and see sleek housing
developments next to the Apple campus instead of tents.

Jul 12 22 11:
13:07 am Happy
Jul 28 22 08:
56:59 pm Happy
This is excellent and may look pretty cool balanced with Hyatt across the street. High transit. Somewhat close to shopping Jul 28 22 11:
46:14 pm Happy
More mixed housing = better schools, more local employment opportunity, better quality of life, better city.

Aug 02 22 08:
12:29 pm Happy
I agree the location near 280 is suitable for high density housing.

The only objection could be increased traffic, but being close to 280 this shouldn't be a big issue.

Aug 03 22 11:
21:25 am Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
26:55 pm Happy Close to transit
Aug 03 22 06:
45:21 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
54:22 pm Happy
This is excellent and may look pretty cool balanced with Hyatt across the street. High transit. Somewhat close to shopping Aug 03 22 07:
54:38 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
40:59 pm Happy
Good choice for higher density. Whole area is being developed so this should be on par too.

Aug 04 22 06:
13:55 am Happy
Aug 04 22 11:
15:47 am Happy
This area is going to be a mess any way so go ahead and add to it
Aug 04 22 12:
42:19 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing because it is close to everything and very walkable.

Aug 05 22 04:
35:29 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 257 units
Aug 14 22 07:
58:47 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 10:
39:47 am Happy
Good site, fits in context with the rest of vallco. Mitigate freeway noise and pollution. Add public easements to Merritt Dr. for bike and pedestrian
Aug 15 22 05:
06:55 pm Happy Go higher next to 280 - much higher.

Aug 15 22 08:
07:56 pm Happy Close to freeway and good place for high density housing Jul 29 22 03:
23:18 pm Neutral
Cupertino needs to step up their housing supply to satisfy the needs of the state
Aug 03 22 05:
20:35 pm Neutral
Aug 04 22 07:
04:04 am Neutral
Too many housing units and too close to freeway with bad air quality. Very unhealthy.

Jul 28 22 07:
39:46 pm Unhappy Way too much housing already
Jul 28 22 10:
57:49 pm Unhappy
It’s already a dense area full of aptmnts w’in 1 mile circle. High rise (8 flrs) & even denser units proposal would exhaust neighborhood resources such as education and traffic. It’d become a tumor of city. Consider areas of less apartments instead.

Jul 29 22 10:
29:25 am Unhappy
I do not want 22 story buildings in my backyard..TRAFFIC is awful now.. Think how it will be with all this housing. UGLY Jul 29 22 10:
32:56 am Unhappy NO we have enough housing and traffic already.

Jul 29 22 05:
27:34 pm Unhappy
There has been an increase of traffic at all time of the day when Apple was built. Homestead/Lawrence Expressway/Wolf is jammed with traffic.

Jul 29 22 05:
35:16 pm Unhappy Already too dense in this area
Jul 29 22 06:
46:05 pm Unhappy Way too much housing already
Aug 03 22 11:
05:10 am Unhappy traffic congestion
Aug 03 22 01:
40:37 pm Unhappy I don't like to have too many houses in this area any more.

Aug 04 22 02:
48:18 pm Unhappy
Too many cars jammed into a two-lane road to enter/exit I-280; It is on top of the cars to/from the Apple campus across I-280.

Aug 04 22 03:
52:12 pm Unhappy
The housing density - including existing condos/apartments - alone Wolfe Rd, which is a two-lane road will be way too high; how many cars can go through the I-280 interchange without causing serverely congested Wolfe Rd.?
Aug 04 22 03:
57:40 pm Unhappy
The last few high density housing projects are unevenly distributed toward the eastern end of Cupertino; have you calculated the density per subdivision in Cupertino and try to balance it across the City as a whole?
Aug 04 22 04:
06:08 pm Unhappy
That is simply too many units/cars jammed into one highway interchange. How do you expect Wolfe to digest ~3000 cars over a 2-3 hour window, twice a day; plus the people comes to Main Street/Cupertino Village; plus Apple employees!!
Aug 04 22 04:
09:23 pm Unhappy
Why most of the high density housing (past and present) are **heavily** allocated to eastern side of Cupertino? They should be spread out across the city to reduce the hot spot.

Aug 04 22 06:
09:10 pm Unhappy Simple, two words: traffic, school.

Aug 04 22 06:
13:16 pm Unhappy
How many news kids will there be to get into the schools? On the one hand, you are saying the school is overcrowded; on the other, you are saying the enrollment number is dropping; so which one is true?
Aug 07 22 03:
27:55 pm Unhappy
Aug 13 22 11:
39:18 pm Unhappy
Monstrous buildings - and what happens when the developer fails/refuses to maintain the "roof top garden" - which is like a grave by the way?
Aug 14 22 08:
05:45 pm Unhappy
C 9a: 10730 N. Blaney Ave. & 10710 N. Blaney Ave.

Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 15
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Self-Storage site at Blaney and I-280...Reduce the amount of housing planned by changing the NEW ZONING TO BE R3 with a LAND USE DENSITY of Medium10-20 du/ac). That would be double what it is today, giving the owner a boost but keeping the area similar to other surrounding apartments. This parcel is at a very tight corner used heavily by school traffic, apartment dwellers, neighborhoods accessing Blaney to get to Homestead without making a left turn and avoiding Merritt & Blaney. It will also be an entry point to the Junipero Serra Trail. Please don't make this more dangerous!
The Site Overview is INCORRECT. Current Zoning is NOT R3! Parcel -009 (Mini-Storage) is ZONED P(R2, Mini-Stor)
Parcel -008 (house) is ZONED P(R2, Mini-Stor) with Density Low/Med (5-10 DU/AC) All the surrounding apartments are 2-story R3 with a max height of 30 ft. (-20 homes)
Great location to add density (+15 homes)
No comment (-61 homes)
This is good. No displacement. On latest Site List, there is 10710 also. The Google shows the 10710 as a house, and the 10730 as a Self Storage. Either way, it looks like a good place to put homes, and the DU of 30 allows for affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
27:19 pm Happy
Definitely like this. Like the 5-story since it is close to 280. Good use of space
Aug 03 22 03:
14:49 pm Happy
Makes sense to increase density especially if we have lost some existing high-density housing.

Aug 03 22 04:
05:51 pm Happy more of the same
Aug 03 22 05:
51:47 pm Happy
Good location. Freeway close. Seems like good traffic flow near on-ramps.

Aug 03 22 06:
01:41 pm Happy Need more apartments in Cupertino. Close to schools.

Aug 03 22 06:
34:22 pm Happy Near 280, large site
Aug 03 22 06:
35:46 pm Happy Large and near 280
Aug 03 22 06:
44:56 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
13:17 pm Happy great location for higher density
Aug 05 22 01:
07:39 pm Happy
High transit areas like Hwy 280 should be better utilized.

Increase building height to 6 stories to create more than 61 units Aug 11 22 04:
20:47 pm Happy
Aug 11 22 07:
12:11 pm Happy Close to Apple campus, reduce potential traffic.

Aug 14 22 08:
41:57 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 12:
20:16 pm Happy
Drivers on 280 won’t complain about height. A cautionary note:
air quality is a concern; consider measurement and mitigation (such as the soot-catching oaks planted by Canopy.org along the East Palo Alto sound wall.

Aug 16 22 10:
31:02 am Happy
Jul 28 22 07:
46:03 pm Unhappy not appropriate for houses
Jul 29 22 07:
37:14 am Unhappy No high rise in neighborhood
Jul 29 22 10:
31:57 am Unhappy We have had enough. More traffic and crime.

Jul 29 22 05:
00:49 pm Unhappy
this already has housing and would be hard to put more. Not appropriate
Aug 14 22 08:
03:09 pm Unhappy
D 11a: 10787 S Blaney Ave et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 29
Neutral 5
Unhappy 47
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
This site is too close to residential neighborhoods (-65 homes) Shopping center behind Walgreens at Blaney and Bollinger...There are homes on the north end of this site so keep the height/setback to be the same as max R1 at this end. PRESERVE THE RETAIL COMPONENT because this is a NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER! REQUIRE 80% of ground floor be retail, 100% accessible to the public, with retail space large enough for a grocery store or produce market - something to complement the Walgreens. Not all small salons. This is an ideal site to foster walking to local shopping located on this site. REQUIRE retail square footage to be AT LEAST as much as is currently present. If the 80% requirement conflicts with the AT LEAST requirement, require the larger square footage of the two.

SUGGESTION: Maybe keep the current density (don't increase it)but just add it to the Housing Element as a site? NOTE: It is NOT "surrounded by commercial" as the "Site Overview" states. It IS the commercial! It's a long walk to De Anza Blvd and back with groceries.
(-15 homes)
Traffic here is already bad -- why make it worse? Is there a corresponding plan to contain traffic congestion? great location to add density. (+10 homes)
Change to 30 DU to allow for affordable housing.
10787 is a small shopping center. Does not displace housing. (+40 homes(
No comment (-65 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:
17:12 pm Happy
Mixed use would not fit well in this neighborhood. Proposed density and height would allow a nice development which would blend in with the existing neighborhoods.

Jul 28 22 07:
29:29 pm Happy Good use of land. Close to transit.

Jul 31 22 01:
51:53 pm Happy
Aug 01 22 04:
11:23 am Happy
This site is more suitable for residential than commercial.

Density and heights seem appropriate.

Aug 01 22 02:
57:04 pm Happy
Good new zoning criteria. This is best as a residential neighborhood.

Aug 03 22 10:
08:15 am Happy
This would be an improved use for this property, located in a residential area. density and height are appropriate.

Aug 03 22 10:
25:19 am Happy
This is a better location for residential than along busy main streets such as De Anza.

Aug 03 22 11:
11:50 am Happy
New housing needs to be spread throught the city. This is a small number of additional housing units for this part of the city.

Definately good.

Aug 03 22 11:
54:19 am Happy
Residential here would be a good addition to the neighborhood.

Density is appropriate.

Aug 03 22 01:
07:49 pm Happy Commercial belongs on De Anza and Stevens Creek.

Aug 03 22 01:
11:06 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 01:
40:48 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 02:
05:48 pm Happy Suitable location. Suitable zoning specifics.

Aug 03 22 02:
55:56 pm Happy Good location and density.

Aug 03 22 04:
36:46 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
40:54 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
48:53 pm Happy
A nice large site. I like the height limitation of four stories given the surrounding residential. I'm sure some people would complain about this one, but we have to do something to increase housing opportunities for people.

Aug 03 22 05:
57:42 pm Happy Very suitable for this location.

Aug 03 22 06:
44:50 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
45:10 pm Happy
I think this site would be a good selection for affordable housing.

I would rather see only two stories however.

Aug 03 22 09:
56:02 pm Happy
This looks like an excellent spot for higher density because of the large lot.

Aug 03 22 09:
58:18 pm Happy
This is a good place for higher density. It is close to restaurants, schools and parks. It will be an attractive place to live.

Aug 04 22 12:
14:36 pm Happy
this location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services and shops
Aug 05 22 01:
18:05 pm Happy
Happy to see this large site get more than 65 units / condos / townhomes. Increase building height to 5 or 6
Aug 11 22 04:
21:23 pm Happy
Aug 14 22 08:
43:53 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 10:
32:20 am Happy
Underutilized shopping center with empty stores. Keep in mind this contains neighborhood retail with lots of small businesses. It should be zoned mixed use with options to keep the existing businesses. Build a public easement to La Roda Dr.

Aug 15 22 05:
03:00 pm Happy
Trees, balconies with plants, and a stepped-back design can help mitigate the concerns of the next door NIMBYs.

Aug 15 22 08:
03:49 pm Happy Good location near jobs, schools and freeway.

Jul 28 22 07:
46:52 pm Neutral need some retail there - not so much housing Jul 29 22 05:
02:44 pm Neutral
Make this more retail and viable for retail. Very little housing here. We need to retain our businesses and help businesses come in
Jul 29 22 06:
33:37 pm Neutral
Aug 01 22 06:
02:04 pm Neutral
4 stories seems a bit high - 3 stories seems about right. Assume wall would remain that buffers the current La Roda Drive dead- end? Otherwise that would significantly increase traffic along La Roda Drive. Also, where would lost retail get replaced? Aug 02 22 10:
23:39 pm Neutral seems ok to me.

Jul 28 22 07:
47:18 pm Unhappy hope TP Tea stays
Aug 01 22 11:
56:01 am Unhappy
4 story building will be too intrusive to neighboring single family home. 2 story building should be fine.

Aug 01 22 09:
25:30 pm Unhappy
We don't want multi-story housing projects built in our neighborhood. We need sense of safety and privacy. The city needs to set a height and density limit of any new constructions to protect the benefit of existing residents of single or two-story houses
Aug 02 22 09:
58:58 pm Unhappy

1. I love those convenient small stores such as restaurants, barber shops, music/dance classes for kids, which is part of our community.

Aug 02 22 10:
01:01 pm Unhappy The original stores are good, why rezone to residential? Aug 02 22 10:
02:14 pm Unhappy
I don't like the 4 story high density residential plans, not very good for privacy for SFH in the neighborhood.

Aug 02 22 10:
10:15 pm Unhappy love the boba tea stores and restaurants, want to keep them Aug 03 22 12:
47:04 pm Unhappy
Current plaza is quite good for the community. The building height should be equal or less than 2.

Aug 03 22 12:
49:04 pm Unhappy Want to keep the commercial stores, they're awesome! Aug 03 22 12:
50:03 pm Unhappy No need to change.

Aug 03 22 12:
51:18 pm Unhappy Hope to build more schools， not high density ones.

Aug 03 22 03:
20:54 pm Unhappy Don’t want any more high density residential units! Aug 03 22 04:
20:48 pm Unhappy no more high density housing!
Aug 03 22 04:
34:53 pm Unhappy love the boba tea ship and other stores, can we keep them? Aug 03 22 04:
50:00 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 04:
56:13 pm Unhappy not happy with this plan!
Aug 03 22 04:
56:39 pm Unhappy no more 4 story buildings!!
Aug 03 22 04:
57:35 pm Unhappy no rezone for high density any more
Aug 03 22 05:
01:31 pm Unhappy please keep the current zoning
Aug 03 22 06:
01:30 pm Unhappy Don’t like the rezone plan
Aug 03 22 06:
34:20 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 06:
44:10 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 07:
41:06 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 08:
12:23 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 08:
42:51 pm Unhappy More prefer not to rezone
Aug 03 22 09:
06:30 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 10:
26:44 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 11:
39:28 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 11:
55:59 pm Unhappy Stop rezoning the commercial land
Aug 04 22 12:
04:08 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 12:
35:09 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 08:
34:09 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 11:
58:00 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 03:
37:35 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 08:
27:40 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 09:
52:20 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 11:
27:54 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 07:
41:40 am Unhappy
Aug 05 22 01:
22:04 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 03:
04:41 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 09:
58:48 pm Unhappy
Aug 07 22 07:
11:52 pm Unhappy
Aug 08 22 07:
24:51 pm Unhappy
Aug 11 22 09:
20:06 pm Unhappy
Four stories is too high for the neighborhood. Two stories will make more sense.

Aug 14 22 07:
58:05 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:
58:35 pm Unhappy
Too crowded already. Not enough infrastructure. What about water?
Aug 14 22 08:
06:42 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 06:
52:56 am
D 11b: 20421 Bollinger Rd et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 15
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Taco Bell and adjacent sites...The far eastern side of 11b should not be taller than what's allowed for R1 because it borders single family homes.

REQUIRE that there be ground floor retail where Taco Bell is located with the size being AT LEAST as large as the existing Taco Bell (not multiple little shops).

Traffic here is already bad -- why make it worse? Is there a corresponding plan to contain traffic congestion? great location to add density
Taco Bell et all. Great location. Perhaps add density to allow for more height on this major thoroughfare. (+20 homes) No comment (-37 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:33:
15 pm Happy Good use of land in a high transit area
Aug 02 22 10:07:
28 pm Happy
There is large land just full of weeds, I think build some residential will be good plan here.

Aug 02 22 10:08:
28 pm Happy
good location, and that Taco Bell store is abandoned long time ..

Aug 02 22 10:09:
35 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 12:49:
54 pm Happy This location is very good for housing development Aug 03 22 01:08:
33 pm Happy Good location for residential.

Aug 03 22 04:21:
18 pm Happy support this!
Aug 03 22 04:40:
13 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:46:
13 pm Happy
Seems like a reasonable place. It does border some
residential, but highly commercial as well so this should be fine. Large size means the residential borders (east side) might have some setback from the building so not so close to
neighbors.

Aug 03 22 09:59:
48 pm Happy
This is a good location. Many amenities close by. Easy access to freeway.

Aug 04 22 12:15:
45 pm Happy
This location should have high density due to proximity to city services, shops, etc.

Aug 05 22 01:19:
32 pm Happy
All high transit corridor sites like this large site should be better utilized. Increase building height to six stories to create more than 38 units
Aug 11 22 07:17:
06 pm Happy
A good location for high density building with connivence stores nearby.

Aug 15 22 09:42:
48 am Happy
Housing fits well with the Bollinger safety improvements planned by Cupertino and SJ. These lots are severely
underutilized but preserve the existing plexes if possible.

Aug 15 22 05:05:
33 pm Happy
A great opportunity for tall housing with a “complete” streets project to slow traffic on this high pedestrian traffic crossing.

Jul 29 22 05:03:
32 pm Neutral Perfect spot for more retail and less housing on this area Jul 29 22 07:38:
56 am Unhappy
Aug 02 22 10:00:
20 pm Unhappy
I don't like the high density residential plan, even it's plan to re- zone, I think 4 story is too high for the adjacent single family neighbors.

E 18a: 10065 E Estates Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Excellent choice. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
07:21 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, close to shopping Aug 03 22 12:
40:10 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
32:38 pm Happy
I agree this is a great place for high density development, particularly given the proximity to The Rise and Main Street. This whole are is a great place for high density given the walkable opportunities with everything around.

Aug 03 22 10:
14:46 pm Happy
Good spot for development. Higher density will bring much needed housing to this side of town.

Aug 04 22 12:
26:11 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 04:
10:28 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to ten to create more units / condos / townhomes
Aug 15 22 09:
29:02 am Happy
Close to vallco, transit, parks, tino high school. This is a prime location for mixed use and homes on top. Redesign the
sidewalks and streetscape to be walking friendly!
Jul 29 22 05:
10:37 pm Neutral
make this mixed use with emphasis on retail. We are losing our retail and will have so much housing across the street. Retail Retail little housing, if any
Jul 28 22 07:
52:39 pm Unhappy too dense for this area. Too many high rises Jul 29 22 07:
42:34 am Unhappy Too high. Traffic.

Jul 29 22 08:
35:40 am Unhappy Too high a housing density
Jul 29 22 06:
38:32 pm Unhappy
keep good retail here. tooo much across the street already.

NOOOOO
E 18b: 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Excellent choice. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
09:06 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping Aug 03 22 12:
40:24 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
30:42 pm Happy
Somewhat small, but a good candidate given the location. High density is fine.

Aug 03 22 10:
16:31 pm Happy
This part of town sorely needs new development. Higher density will bring much needed housing to this side of town.

Aug 04 22 12:
26:44 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 04:
11:07 pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 32 units Jul 29 22 08:
36:44 am Unhappy Housing would clog important intersection Jul 29 22 08:
37:27 am Unhappy Too many cars at important intersection Jul 29 22 05:
11:30 pm Unhappy
maybe 2-3 stories high. Stop putting all the dense housing so close together. Not cool
Jul 29 22 06:
39:09 pm Unhappy maybe 2-3 stories high. too much in this area already E 18c: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+133 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. Add 48 homes. . 96 x du 50 = 48 homes
(+48 homes)
Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
08:10:32
pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping Aug 03 22
12:41:24
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
10:17:58
pm Happy
Good location for development and high density housing. It's opposite Main St. Residents can walk to the restaurants here. Close to freeway too. Very convenient.

Aug 04 22
12:27:21
pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22
04:11:47
pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22
09:31:55
am Happy
GREAT site close to Main St, Cupertino High School, Apple HQ. Fits in a context with lots of mixed use and housing. Next to the rainbow flag crosswalk too -- could be a community space for LGBT youth? Use TDM strategies -- many don't need cars here
Aug 03 22
05:29:42
pm Neutral
This is a pretty good candidate. Seems like a middle ground type of development might be better here compared to other candidate areas. Not as tall of buildings (maybe 3 or 4 stories max).

Jul 29 22
07:41:48
am Unhappy Too close to school. Traffic.

Jul 29 22
08:38:43
am Unhappy Way too high housing density. 8 floors is out of character for area.

Jul 29 22
05:12:31
pm Unhappy
Too much in this area. Stop with all the density in 1 area. Enough already. Schools are so crowded in these areas
Jul 29 22
06:39:44
pm Unhappy too much here already
E 18d: 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. Add 48 homes. . 96 x du 50 = 48 homes
(+60 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:12:
12 pm Happy Good location, Close to transit and shopping Aug 03 22 12:
41:53 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
19:01 pm Happy
Good location for more higher density housing. Lots of
restaurants here . Close to freeway. All very convenient.

Aug 04 22 12:
27:55 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 04:
12:30 pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.

Increase building height to ten to create new units
Aug 15 22 09:
34:07 am Happy
Good location in high density mixed use context with protected bike lanes. Make sure any housing has a public easement to Richwood Ct/Miller Ave for pedestrian access. Maybe even a bridge over the creek to Craft Dr -- super short walk to Tino Jul 29 22 08:39:
32 am Unhappy
Way too high housing density. 8 floors is out of character for area.

Jul 29 22 05:13:
35 pm Unhappy
As said before. Enough of the density in this part of town. So unfair
Jul 29 22 06:40:
30 pm Unhappy stop the density in this part of town.

F 16a: 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 5
Neutral 1
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+23)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
58:54 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, shopping Aug 04 22 12:
23:42 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 03:
38:35 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22 09:
37:23 am Happy build mixed use housing!
Aug 15 22 12:
29:49 pm Happy
Gas stations are, hopefully, a dying breed. Watch for soil contamination here, and again, build tall, with verdant and attractive elements. Tall corner features like a clock tower can add interest and calm traffic.

Aug 03 22 10:
09:10 pm Neutral
Isn't this currently a gas station? What will it take to clean up this space so that it is suitable for housing?
Jul 29 22 05:
07:21 pm Unhappy
too dense for this area. If you put housing make it for sale nice units. This whole area is way to dense on this side of town Jul 29 22 06:
36:50 pm Unhappy great place for more retail goods
Jul 30 22 08:
53:10 am Unhappy
Too much housing already being added in this area due to Vallco.

F 16b: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+23 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:00:
54 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, stores
Aug 03 22 10:
10:00 pm Happy
There are already some apartment blocks here. Adding to them will fit the general look of the area.

Aug 04 22 12:
24:16 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 03:
39:04 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units Aug 15 22 09:
38:26 am Happy
Mixed use housing fits well in the existing context. Improve the streetscape for pedestrians. Fewer environmental concerns than the gas station across the street. Go as big as possible -- this is a good spot
Aug 15 22 12:
23:46 pm Happy
Good rationale. I’d also require large tree species with plenty of root room, as well as daylight plane considerations.

Aug 15 22 12:
26:36 pm Happy
Again, good rationale. And again, large tree species and daylight plane considerations. Some kind of unifying design elements for the entire Heart of the City would creat a sense of place.

Aug 15 22 12:
39:43 pm Happy
Short-sighted owner missed an opportunity to link with the surrounding apartment project. That being said, a distinctive, tall, corner project could provide one of several “gateway” features along SC Blvd. Include ground level food.

Jul 29 22 06:37:
15 pm Unhappy retail appropriate
Jul 30 22 08:52:
53 am Unhappy
Too much housing already being added in this area due to Vallco.

F 16c: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+30 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:02:
37 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit and shopping Aug 03 22 11:
26:05 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
38:15 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
10:47 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
25:00 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.

Aug 05 22 03:
40:21 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22 09:
41:07 am Happy
There is a mixed use complex across the street! This fits in the context well. Make it as easy to build here as possible and encourage TDM strategies.

Aug 15 22 04:
44:03 pm Happy
Same as previous comments - except that a plaque should be placed on the adjacent parcel to the north (10080)
commemorating the original location of the Cupertino Bike Shop, famous for popularizing lightweight multi-speed racing bikes -
Jul 29 22 06:37:
43 pm Neutral a few houses would be ok
Jul 29 22 05:09:
07 pm Unhappy
not too dense here. Make it nice homes for sale - no high density so close to Vallco Area. Schools are pretty impacted here
G 15a: 10125 Bandley Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 2
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Lei Garden Dim Sum site...REMOVE THIS ENTIRELY FROM THE LIST! This is a very popular restaurant! I think people come from outside of Cupertino for dim sum. With Marina putting in housing next to it, people will be looking for restaurants.

Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 houses) Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:39:
18 pm Happy Good location, good transit, good shopping, services, etc.

Jul 28 22 07:51:
24 pm Happy Dense here. Perfect spot for dense dense dense Jul 29 22 03:51:
20 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 03:51:
48 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 05:05:
53 pm Happy
great spot for housing near transit and shopping. Dense here is appropriate for this site
Jul 29 22 06:35:
49 pm Happy near everything. Dense os appropriate
Aug 03 22 11:
23:40 am Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
35:23 pm Happy
Great place for high density. Maybe moderate things a bit with the residential across the street (less than 8 stories high) Aug 03 22 06:
03:45 pm Happy Need more apartments. Close to schools on Blaney.

Aug 03 22 10:
02:40 pm Happy
This is a good place for high density. Close to everything.

Residents can walk to a lot of things.

Aug 04 22 12:
18:18 pm Happy
this location should have high density due to proximity to shops, transit, etc.

Aug 05 22 03:
12:10 pm Happy
Good to see more density at a high transit corridor site this large. Increase building height to ten for more than 50 units Aug 14 22 08:
47:55 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 04:
48:39 pm Happy
Let’s consider going higher here (12 stories?) due to low neighbor impact and setback from SC Blvd.

Aug 03 22 12:
32:54 pm Neutral
I like the idea in the abstract, but I'm concerned about what might happen to the existing business on the site.

Aug 04 22 06:
16:52 am Neutral
Aug 14 22 08:
04:03 pm Unhappy
G 15b: 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 13
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Mr. Sun Tea site/was a BBQ site...REQUIRE 80% of first floor be retail open 100% to the public (put it in the deed restrictions).

REQUIRE that at least one of the retail spaces on the first floor be AT LEAST AS BIG as the existing square footage.

Can this be an affordable disabled site? It has sidewalks, access to transportation and shopping and classes at De Anza.

Policy...Can retail businesses (not office) grab a unit for an employee and somehow subsidize it? Can rent be lower for Cupertino retail workers?
Can local property tax be reduced if X% of units are Cupertino retail workers or 50% affordable? OR can Cupertino retail workers be able to submit paperwork for rebates on their rent each month? (+15 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+10 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+15 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
41:23 pm Happy Excellent site, shopping, transit.

Jul 29 22 06:
36:20 pm Happy greart place for housing and density
Aug 03 22 10:
32:56 am Happy
Aug 03 22 11:
23:55 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:18 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
05:27 pm Happy Owner interest. Near everthing
Aug 03 22 05:
37:24 pm Happy
Good place for development. Probably less than 8 stories given the small size.

Aug 03 22 10:
04:20 pm Happy
Definitely should build high density housing here. It is such an underused space. More housing here means residents can walk to many amenities. Memorial Park, restaurants and shops.

Aug 04 22 11:
03:55 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
19:13 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to shops, transit, etc.

Aug 05 22 03:
13:22 pm Happy
Happy to see more density in a high transit corridor site.

Increase the building height to ten for more units
Aug 14 22 08:
49:53 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 04:
50:18 pm Happy
Sounds good - just plant plenty of trees to mitigate neighbor impacts.

Aug 04 22 06:
22:38 am Unhappy Too dense
G 15c: 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 9
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Fontana's Restaurant site...REQUIRE 80% of first floor be retail open 100% to the public (put it in the deed restrictions). REQUIRE that at least one of the retail spaces on the first floor be AT LEAST AS BIG as the existing square footage.

Can this be an affordable disabled site? It has sidewalks, access to transportation and shopping and classes at De Anza.

Policy...Can retail businesses (not office) grab a unit for an employee and somehow subsidize it? Can rent be lower for Cupertino retail workers?
Can local property tax be reduced if X% of units are Cupertino retail workers or 50% affordable? (+10 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Aug 03 22 10:
32:20 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:25 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
05:36 pm Happy
More housing here means it won't be 'dead' at night. Residents can walk to many amenities. Good location for higher density.

Aug 04 22 06:
25:00 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:06 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
21:16 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 25 units
Aug 14 22 08:
52:52 pm Happy State requirements
Aug 15 22 09:
16:09 am Happy
Excellent access to shopping and public transit. There will be protected bike lanes soon so you can get around very easily.

Means more homes, less parking needed. Walkable to De Anza College too. Shoot for mixed use -- commercial on ground floor Aug 15 22 04:
53:05 pm Happy
It was a nice restaurant - but times change. Why not consider stepped height - three along SC Blvd and eight in the “back”.

First floor retail also, with large trees and wide sidewalk.

Jul 28 22 07:
46:57 pm Neutral
I'm having a hard time envisioning how this fits with everything else nearby, but it matches all my other criteria: transit, shopping/services, etc.

G 15d: 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
TJ Max, HomeGoods, UPS Store, Sprouts, Starbucks, FedEx, Credit Union, etc. - REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST ENTIRELY! This is a thriving shopping center. Don't mess with it. We desperately need retail. What good is Via if there's no place to go in Cupertino?!?!?
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+250 homes) Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
49:48 pm Happy
This has it all: location, transit, matches density of existing units, services, stores
Aug 03 22 10:
31:38 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:31 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:30 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
22:46 pm Happy
Happy to see more density in a high transit corridor site this large. Create a mixed use building for retail and residents Aug 14 22 08:
53:50 pm Happy Required
Aug 15 22 09:
17:33 am Happy
In my experience, the parking lot on the west side is
underutilized. You can build on there without disrupting parking for the shopping center. This is a great place for housing walkable to shopping, transit. Build a pedestrian Paseo to Faria on Scofield
Aug 15 22 04:
56:13 pm Happy
This is a prime candidate for moving the face of first floor retail out toward the street, with large tree species and a wide sidewalk. This will make Cupertino’s signature street much more attractive. Put LOTS of housing above.

Aug 03 22 05:
12:06 pm Unhappy Only mixed retail with a little house
Aug 04 22 06:
19:25 am Unhappy Keep important retail stores
G 15e: 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Staples site - REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST COMPLETELY!!! This is the only office supply store in miles. Do a search. The closest are in Los Gatos and Mountain View. Encourage them to stay, don't entice them to leave! Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+25 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
51:58 pm Happy
Every little bit helps. This meets my criteria: location, transit, shopping
Aug 03 22 12:
36:38 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 06:
20:47 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:59 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
23:29 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 30 units
Aug 14 22 08:
54:54 pm Happy Required
Aug 15 22 05:
00:00 pm Happy
An opportunity to create a bike/Pedestrian connection to Scofield Dr.

Aug 03 22 05:
15:38 pm Neutral As long as retail stays
G 15f: 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this
site being considered for
future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Dish Dash Restaurant...keep this retail/restaurant! It's successful.

If it's added, REQUIRE 80% of entire first floor to be retail 100% open to the public. REQUIRE that one of the first floor retail spaces be AT LEAST AS BIG as the Dish Dash restaurant square footage (not broken up into nail salon size).

Policies...Is there a creative way for local businesses to grab a unit for an employee, maybe subsidize it? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+ 50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes) Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you
feel about
this site
being
considered
for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
53:46 pm Happy Like it because of the location, shopping & transit Aug 03 22 10:
33:45 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:54 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
21:23 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
24:13 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 28 units
Aug 14 22 08:
55:41 pm Happy Required
Aug 04 22 06:
26:48 am Unhappy Dish dash is great
G 15g: 20850 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
"CONFUSING...map shows 15g in front of Staples (15e).

Is this the old Pizza Hut site? If so, REQUIRE 80% of first floor to be RETAIL with 100% open to the public. Also, REQUIRE that one retail unit be AT LEAST the same or larger square footage as the Pizza Hut building. Put REQUIRMENTS as deed restrictions that must be recorded in order for zoning to change or building permit to be issued."
(+10 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+20 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. These homes will be needed to take the place of the Hamptons. (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
55:47 pm Happy Like that it is near shopping & transit. Good use of land Aug 03 22 11:
23:27 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
37:01 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
07:32 pm Happy
This is prime location. Housing here will allow residents to walk to many things.

Aug 04 22 12:
21:46 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
24:41 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 14 units
Aug 15 22 09:
18:13 am Happy Homes on old parking lots = good
Aug 03 22 05:
19:27 pm Unhappy
H 19a: 19820 Homestead Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 5
Neutral 2
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) Allow higher du so that more homes can be built. .44 X30 = 13.2 Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
16:05 pm Happy It's fine. Doesn't add a whole lot, but every little bit helps.

Jul 29 22 05:
15:22 pm Happy ok if not too many homes
Aug 03 22 10:
20:06 pm Happy
Good location for more housing. Restaurants, grocery store and freeway are all close by.

Aug 04 22 12:
29:19 pm Happy great location to add moderate density
Aug 05 22 04:
13:29 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to four or five to create more units / condos / townhomes
Jul 29 22 06:
40:56 pm Neutral
Aug 11 22 02:
25:11 pm Neutral
I am not opposed to this location, just seems like high density for this site.

Aug 02 22 08:
36:01 pm Unhappy
Pretty small and close to residential. Not a good place for high density.

H 19b: 11025 N De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) Corner of Stevens Creek blvd. Excellent space to add density. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
17:52 pm Happy
Good location, close to transit, much better use than the current eyesore
Jul 29 22 05:
16:33 pm Happy ok site for density Has all amenities including transit Aug 02 22 08:
48:02 pm Happy
I agree that the proximity to 280 and adjacent commercial make this a good candidate for development.

Aug 03 22 11:
24:44 am Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
21:18 pm Happy
Great spot for more housing. There are apartments already nearby so it won't affect the "look" of area. Lots of restaurants and grocery stores within walking distance.

Aug 04 22 12:
30:55 pm Happy
this location should have high density housing due to proximity to transit, freeways, shops, etc.

Aug 05 22 04:
14:25 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 21 units
Aug 11 22 02:
23:19 pm Happy Good place for infill.

Aug 11 22 04:
20:05 pm Happy
Aug 15 22 10:
58:45 am Happy
Good, but consider leaving it open to mixed use as well. Fits with the commercial corridor across the street.

Jul 29 22 06:
41:38 pm Neutral
H 20a: APN 32607030
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
If this is adjacent to 20916 -- parking and McDonald's, excellent. No families displaced.

This whole area is ideal for housing density! Good traffic flow and some support businesses that could use the customers.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:30:
07 pm Happy
Jul 28 22 06:30:
20 pm Happy
Jul 28 22 07:56:
25 pm Happy High dense perfect area
Jul 28 22 08:20:
57 pm Happy
I can't tell where this is, but being on Stelling, it has easy access.

Jul 29 22 05:17:
50 pm Happy near everything
Aug 02 22 08:23:
38 pm Happy
Not close to a lot of residential so it makes sense this could have higher density development.

Aug 03 22 04:23:
42 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:22:
05 pm Happy
If the parking lot is not needed, then building more housing makes sense.

Aug 04 22 12:32:
09 pm Happy great opportunity to add density to this part of the city Aug 05 22 04:15:
30 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to ten to create more than 45 units
Aug 14 22 08:59:
03 pm Happy Required
Aug 14 22 09:13:
10 pm Happy State
Aug 15 22 05:19:
26 pm Happy
Former Cupertino mayor Rod Sinks told me that someone did an analysis that showed I’d we developed every parking lot in Silicon Valley, the income could a public transit system that would be free for everyone forever. Parking lots.

Aug 15 22 06:39:
55 pm Happy
Close to Homestead HS, building over underutilized surface parking lots
Aug 12 22 01:00:
07 pm Neutral
it would break up access to the sports facilities from the main church. Perhaps the church would want to partner with a developer and sponsor/build their own social housing to meet city needs?
Aug 04 22 11:10:
03 am Unhappy 8 stories is too high. I would support 3-4 stories.

Aug 14 22 08:04:
35 pm Unhappy
H 20b: 20916 Homestead Road et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 12
Neutral 1
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Excellent. No families replaced.

Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
06:30:58
pm Happy
Jul 28 22
07:57:26
pm Happy Keep some retail please. Too dense in one area Jul 28 22
08:22:39
pm Happy Good location, love the added units, close to shopping, transit Jul 29 22
05:18:58
pm Happy
near all amenities. Good for density. Retain bowling alley. we need places to play
Jul 29 22
06:42:31
pm Happy Keep some retail please.

Aug 02 22
08:33:49
pm Happy
Being in a commercial area, it seems appropriate for high density housing.

Aug 04 22
12:32:59
pm Happy great location to add density to this area
Aug 05 22
04:16:24
pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 228 units and retail
Aug 12 22
01:01:01
pm Happy Parcel could be better designed with mixed-use social housing.

Aug 14 22
09:01:43
pm Happy Required
Aug 14 22
09:15:39
pm Happy StAte
Aug 15 22
05:20:55
pm Happy
I call this area the “slums of Cupertino”. Great candidate for tall, beautiful housing.

Aug 03 22
04:24:08
pm Neutral
Aug 03 22
04:03:58
pm Unhappy Have to get people out of their cars or traffic will be impossible Aug 03 22
10:23:27
pm Unhappy
There are not many restaurants in this part of town. It would be a shame to take away this plaza for housing.

Aug 04 22
11:09:03
am Unhappy
8 stories is much higher than other buildings around this area. I would support shorter buidlings
H 20c: APNs 32607036 & 32607022
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
If this is the adjacent parking lot and McDonald's Excellent area. no families displaced Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
25:07 pm Happy
Nice big area, lots of potential units, close to shopping, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
19:39 pm Happy good for density here. Higher and bigger Aug 03 22 11:
27:21 am Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
24:37 pm Happy
I'd rather you take away this parcel for housing compared to 20b.

This parcel is underused and more housing here makes sense.

Aug 04 22 12:
33:45 pm Happy
great location to add mixed-use buildings with high density housing
Aug 05 22 04:
17:00 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 167 units
Aug 14 22 09:
23:39 pm Happy State
Aug 15 22 06:
36:06 pm Happy
Aug 12 22 01:
02:33 pm Neutral
Perhaps the church would be agreeable to partner with a developer to create social housing for the community. I enjoy using these community resources the church provides for my children and my family. The sports facilities are open to the public.

I 14a: Right- of- Way, Mary Ave Site
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 5
Unhappy 8
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
great location to add density. Close to freeways and De Anza college (+88 homes) Excellent location for Extremely Low Income Housing for Developmentally Intellectually Disabled people.

I've lived nearby and feel this is an ideal place for affordable homes. However it is ALSO the site where they were going to put in senior housing and the local NIMBY contingent destroyed any possibility. This is a completely unused space. Please build housing there.

Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site
being considered
for future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:36:32 pmHappy ok for this site
Jul 29 22 04:47:51 pmHappy Perfect site for more density. Near park, transportation and schools. Go up in height
Aug 02 22 07:17:17 pmHappy Highway noise and pollution need to be mitigated.

Aug 02 22 08:28:20 pmHappy Need to mitigate freeway noise and potential pollution. Close to major traffic hub
Aug 03 22 03:02:16 pmHappy Adding units for affordable housing is a great idea.

Aug 03 22 04:23:08 pmHappy
Aug 03 22 06:30:02 pmHappy Near 85
Aug 4 22 11:57:05 AMHappy great opportunity for affordable housing with services within walking distance
Aug 5 22 11:49:27 AMHappy Cupertino needs both affordable and market rate housing so this site should be better utilized
Aug 11 22 2:21:56 PMHappy Will need EXTREME noise mitigation.

Aug 14 22 8:37:27 PMHappy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Jul 28 22 06:35:53 pmNeutral I don't have a good feel for how close to the highway this is. I'm all for it, as long as it's safe.

Jul 28 22 08:44:00 pm
Neutral
These units seem like the would be fairly miserable to live in-- loud and with all kinds of pollution making opening your windows impossible. This is not the best spot for new housing.

Aug 03 22 12:25:23 pmNeutral
Aug 03 22 12:35:35 pmNeutral Are you going to plant trees somewhere else to replace all the trees and foliage that will be removed for this project? Aug 15 22 10:34:17 AM
Neutral
It would fit in with existing and future housing in the area but I'd be concerned about noise and air pollution from the freeway.

Look for ways to mitigate -- air filtration, plant trees, etc Jul 28 22 07:44:48 pmUnhappy Concerned about traffic jam around Mary.

Aug 03 22 11:10:57 amUnhappy need public transit improvements concurrent with this project Aug 4 22 7:12:36 AMUnhappy There is no freeway access which forces all traffic to route through Steven's Creek and Stelling.

Aug 4 22 10:55:00 AMUnhappy new development at stevens creek and mary is already adding housing and traffic.

Aug 4 22 10:57:16 AM
Unhappy
new development at stevens creek and mary is already adding housing and traffic. When De Anza is 100% in person teaching there is also a lot of traffic. During the weekends with flea market and memorial park events it is a very busy area
Aug 12 22 12:33:00 PM
Unhappy
I'm not against more housing, however the space identified is very very narrow and I question if the developer would be able to build residences to code. but the location is good and so is the idea. Feasibility seems low.

Aug 14 22 8:00:12 PMUnhappy
Aug 14 22 8:00:50 PMUnhappy
Aug 03 22 06:42:36 pm
J 23a: 10105 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 2
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Old McWhorter's Stationary site...Good location BUT keep the buildings adjacent to the R1 homes at a max of 30 ft and with setbacks and major privacy protection like no windows or high windows above 6ft or frost windows, etc.

Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
45:16 pm Happy even more dense would be good
Jul 28 22 08:
27:42 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping Jul 29 22 05:
22:31 pm Happy Great and handy with transit
Aug 01 22 04:
13:16 am Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
07:35 pm Happy Near transportation, shopping and grocery stores Aug 03 22 10:
26:38 pm Happy
This is a good spot for high density. It is currently underused.

Residents here can walk to restaurants, grocery stores. Right on De Anza Blvd also very convenient.

Aug 04 22 12:
35:04 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great! Aug 05 22 04:
24:33 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 50 units and mixed retail
Aug 11 22 06:
44:28 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years.

Aug 14 22 08:
10:35 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 02 22 08:
15:12 pm Neutral
Being near De Anza makes it a good candidate for high density housing. It is a bit small.

Aug 03 22 11:
45:51 am Neutral
Aug 04 22 02:
08:20 am Unhappy
Oppose the five-story height limit, which will tower over adjacent residential dwellings.

Aug 14 22 08:
05:04 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 06:
42:50 pm
J 23b: 10291 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 9
Neutral 1
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 05 22 04:
36:19 pm Happy
Very accessible area BUT please require it maintain the same square footage of retail!
Jul 28 22 08:
28:52 pm Happy Good location, close to shopping and transit Jul 29 22 05:
23:56 pm Happy
ok as long as not too dense for schools or can always bus to schools with low pupil count
Jul 29 22 06:
44:23 pm Happy bus to schools with low pupil count. too dense here Aug 02 22 08:
17:19 pm Happy
Being close to De Anza and 280 access makes this a good candidate. Close to City Center as well.

Aug 04 22 12:
35:25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great! Aug 05 22 04:
25:15 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 66 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
47:24 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
09:43 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 11:
46:21 am Neutral
Jul 29 22 06:
07:01 pm Unhappy
New housing here is a good idea, but what I have a problem with is it being 5-stories tall. It should match the surrounding 2 story units behind the shopping center. Also, with 66 units and possibly 2 cars per unit, where will all the parking come from? Aug 03 22 04:
29:31 pm Unhappy
Do not put housing on all the identified sits on South De Anza otherwise there will be no retail, no grocery or drug stores.

Aug 03 22 10:
28:13 pm Unhappy
Not sure about developing this parcel for housing. It's a nice little plaza here for restaurants and grocery store.

Aug 04 22 02:
12:41 am Unhappy
Oppose the five-story height limit. As proposed, the new structure would tower over adjacent residential dwellings. De Anza Blvd may be a "high transit corridor," but the same should not be said for Rodrigues Ave.

Aug 14 22 08:
05:20 pm Unhappy
J 23c: 10619 South De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) Move to Tier 1. .26 x 30 = 8 homes
No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
30:39 pm Happy Pretty good location, close to transit, close to shopping Jul 29 22 05:
25:49 pm Happy handy for transit and shops. go up and make a little denser Aug 03 22 04:
34:41 pm Happy
Do not develope aPlease do not make all of these S De Anza sites housing only or there will not be any retail, grocery stores, banks or support services
Aug 03 22 10:
29:15 pm Happy
It makes sense to develop this parcel as not much is going on here.

Aug 04 22 12:
35:48 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great!
Aug 05 22 04:
25:54 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
48:49 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
09:15 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 02 22 08:
20:01 pm Neutral A smaller parcel. I'm Ok with development.

Aug 03 22 11:
46:58 am Neutral
J 23d: 1361 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Yamagami's Nursery...REMOVE from the list entirely. It is one of the 2 remaining nurseries in Cupertino and draws people from other cities. We need a place to buy our drought tolerant and native plants! Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Excellent location . No families displaced.

No comment (-21 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:33:
30 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, lots of possible new units Jul 29 22 05:26:
38 pm Happy
Height could be higher and get more housing here. Near everything
Aug 01 22 04:
12:47 am Happy
Aug 04 22 11:
13:59 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
36:15 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great!
Aug 05 22 04:
26:26 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 121 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
50:27 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
11:08 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:
21:37 pm Neutral Only if the owner really want to sell. We need nurserys Aug 03 22 11:
44:31 am Unhappy
We need nursery in our community. Please keep Yamagami nursery.

Aug 03 22 11:
48:05 am Unhappy
Aug 03 22 12:
02:46 pm Unhappy
Yamagami's Garden Center is part of our community and we support the efforts to keep it open..

Aug 03 22 10:
30:26 pm Unhappy
Isn't Yamagami on this parcel? It's the only independent nursery in Cupertino. Why take it away?
J 23e: 1375 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
REQUIRE 80% ground floor retail and the retail square footage to be preserved.

Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. .3X30 = 9 homes. Excellent. No families displaced.

Business is currently out of business.

No comment (+20 homes)
No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:36:
21 pm Happy Pretty good site, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:28:
21 pm Happy
Need housing in this area. badly. Yes Yes Yes. Dense is good here
Aug 03 22 10:
36:03 pm Happy
Looks like an underused site. Might as well build higher density housing.

Aug 04 22 12:
37:19 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
27:12 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.

Increase building height to six to create new units and retail Aug 11 22 06:
51:51 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
10:14 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 11:
49:22 am Neutral
Aug 03 22 04:
38:18 pm Neutral
J 23f: 1491 s De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Summer Winds Nursery site...REMOVE completely from this list! It is one of two remaining nurseries in Cupertino.

PLEASE DO NOT include this in Tier 1 or Tier 2. Many people in Saratoga and other communities come to this nursery to shop. We want to draw customers not send our people to other cities to shop! Also, with the drought many residents are re-doing their yards with drought tolerant plantings and they come to Summery Winds to shop.

Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. DU of 30 allows for affordable homes.

No comment (+10 homes)
No comment (+20 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:40:
02 pm Happy
Good location, close to transit. I couldn't understand what the new unit potential is
Jul 29 22 05:28:
54 pm Happy more dense here too
Jul 29 22 05:29:
24 pm Happy Yes here. and dense
Aug 03 22 10:
37:12 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
37:57 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
27:45 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
54:37 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
11:43 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:
41:07 pm Unhappy
J 23g: 1451 S De Anza Blvd. and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Jack-in-the-Box site...REQUIRE retail square footage on first floor be at least as much as is currently present.

Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Jack in the Box. Excellent. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:41:
28 pm Happy Looks fine, good use of lot, close to transit Jul 29 22 05:30:
54 pm Happy
all the 23 areas should be able to build high and dense. Very handy area. Put all areas together and build build build Aug 03 22 10:38:
42 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:38:
25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:28:
35 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 15 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:56:
41 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:12:
15 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:44:
36 pm Unhappy Can”t we have at least one drive through in Cupertino? J 23h: 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. Excellent location. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
42:50 pm Happy Good use of lot, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
31:55 pm Happy
all the 23 areas can be higher and denser. great area for housing for all
Aug 03 22 10:
39:14 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
38:50 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
31:50 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.

Increase building height to six to create more than 20 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
58:31 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
12:52 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:
47:51 pm Neutral Don’ get rid of all our businesses
J 23i: 1505 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
New Kelly Moore building site...REQUIRE retail square footage be maintained on the first floor, 100% accessible to the public. The west boundary borders single family homes so keep the max height at 30 ft on that side.

No comment (-67 homes)
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Kelly Moore out of business. Excellent choice. No families displaced. DU allows affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
44:21 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
32:33 pm Happy BUILD BUILD BUILD
Aug 04 22 12:
39:35 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
32:49 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 67 units and retail
Aug 11 22 07:
00:01 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
13:20 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:
51:09 pm Unhappy Do get rid of all of our retail
J 23j: 1515 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Ideal place for housing due to transit availability, shopping and parks. Also struggling schools.

No comment (-43 homes)
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Excellent choice. No families displaced. DU allows for affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you
feel about this
site being
considered for
future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:48:
17 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:33:
00 pm Happy YES
Aug 04 22 12:40:
01 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:33:
22 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large.

Increase building height to six to create more than 43 units and retail Aug 11 22 07:00:
57 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:13:
49 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:54:
42 pm Neutral Save retail
J 23k: South De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? No comment (-46 homes)
Assume this is the Coach Liquor property and adjacent business building with Kikusushi. Excellent location. No families displaced.

DU enough to allow affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:49:
03 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:33:
41 pm Happy ALL THESE AREAS OF 23 CAN BE AS DENSE AS VALLCO Aug 03 22 12:
43:33 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
39:33 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
40:25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
33:52 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 46 units and retail
Aug 11 22 07:
01:47 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
14:39 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 04:
57:33 pm Neutral Where in the world is this? Impossible to evaluate J 23l: 20555 Prospect Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 12
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Business next to gas station. DU is enough for affordable housing . No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:51:
22 pm Happy
This looks like a good site, close to transit. Doesn't provide a lot of units, but every little bit helps
Jul 28 22 09:08:
44 pm Happy
As long as it is done in a way that is respectful to the neighborhood behind, sites like this along high transit corridors are the right place to put higher density.

Jul 29 22 05:34:
23 pm Happy

ADD ALL TOGETHER AND MAKE ANOTHER DENSE PROJECT

LIKE VALLCO IN THIS AREA
Jul 29 22 06:45:
43 pm Happy
add all areas together and make a high dense project like on East Side of Town
Aug 03 22 11:51:
18 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:44:
10 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:01:
09 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:39:
53 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:41:
18 pm Happy good location to add density to this area
Aug 05 22 04:34:
40 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site. Increase building height to create more than 24 units
Aug 11 22 07:03:
48 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:03:
08 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

K 6a: 20865 McClellan road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 18
Neutral 4
Unhappy 21
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? great location to add density. Close to De Anza college Change to DU 30 to allow property owner latitude to build affordable housing. 30 DU times 1 acre = 30 homes.

Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 10 22 09:31:46 pmHappy
Please correct a few things that are incorrect with your assessment on this property.

Jul 28 22 06:57:01 pmHappy Good use of area. Walking distance to transit Jul 28 22 07:42:48 pmHappy good
Jul 28 22 07:48:09 pmHappy
Jul 28 22 08:25:28 pmHappy
I have heard this site might need some soil cleanup but it would be a great sight for townhomes or apartments since it is near major corridor etc
Jul 28 22 08:47:17 pmHappy
This is a perfect spot, and would add needed homes to the west size of DeAnza. With the church next door, it would be quiet and enjoyable place to live, with a bus transport link and shops nearby. It should be three stories, though, not two.

Jul 29 22 04:51:43 pmHappy
good site for housing. Near schools, transportation and ammenities.

Jul 29 22 06:30:21 pmHappy good
Aug 03 22 11:15:46 amHappy
Aug 03 22 03:07:37 pmHappy
This is an awesome site to add more housing. It's close to restaurant, schools, parks.

Aug 03 22 07:47:03 pmHappy Proximity to services and transportation Aug 03 22 10:06:11 pmHappy
With the two story height limitation this sounds like a good strategy.

Aug 04 22 07:31:28 amHappy
Aug 04 22 12:07:41 pmHappy
I would like to see higher density (more stories) at this site due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:51:59 amHappy
This site needs to be utilized better. Increase the building height to 4 or 5 stories to create more than 20 units
Aug 11 22 07:05:49 pmHappy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+ Aug 15 22 09:08:20 amHappy
This parcel is underutilized. The neighboring lot was turned only in into single family homes so I'm happy to see more homes being considered here. It is near protected bike lanes and close to commercial areas. Consider allowing mixed use or more height Aug 15 22 08:12:44 pmHappy Good location for access to freeway and schools Jul 28 22 07:20:49 pmNeutral Just a potential traffic bottleneck.

Jul 28 22 07:25:08 pmNeutral incorrect picture of 20865 McClellan road Aug 03 22 04:00:06 pmNeutral ok, but need public transit or roads will be more clogged than ever Aug 15 22 02:33:32 pmNeutral
20 units of housing in this location would increase the amount of traffic on McClellan Road, which already has a high volume of traffic.

Jul 29 22 12:51:46 pmUnhappy This is not a photo of 20865 McClellan Road.

Jul 29 22 05:01:04 pmUnhappy
Building 10-20 new units on a property where similar size lots around it only hold 1-3 houses is not appropriate for the area.

McClellan also has no street parking, where will these 20units park their cars (w/ potentially ea. unit having minimum 2 cars)? Jul 29 22 05:40:26 pmUnhappy
Will introduce a minimum of 1 additional car per unit (20) that will require access to an already busy McClellan Road, have
considerations been made for water restriction in an already impacted drought, and additional impact to schools and
hospitals?
Aug 02 22 04:16:03 pmUnhappy
10-20 units is too many for this neighborhood space. No parking in McClellan. If each unit has 1-2 cars, where will they park? Aug 02 22 04:17:52 pmUnhappy
Disrupts the neighborhood we already have a surprise
elementary/middle school that appeared suddenly. Traffic is horrible with the unexpected new school as well. There are days I Struggle to get out of my driveway on McClellan
Aug 02 22 04:24:26 pmUnhappy
Ok with 4-5 houses. No 10-30 units of block townhomes/condos.

Doesn’t match cherry lane existing homes. Should focus on completing the court. Not enough parking for 10-20cars.

Aug 02 22 05:31:15 pmUnhappy Traffic is already horrible in the mornings Aug 03 22 08:47:59 amUnhappy
morning school traffic is horrible heading to lincoln, monte vista, faria, tellations (at a church that is now a k-8 school?) Aug 04 22 06:08:13 amUnhappy Traffic on Mclellan
Aug 11 22 09:15:49 pmUnhappy Why not higher than 2 stories? The area is sparsely populated.

Aug 14 22 08:01:20 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:10:28 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:17 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:30 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:45 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:59 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:13 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:26 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:37 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:13:10 pmUnhappy
Aug 14 22 08:13:24 pmUnhappy
K 6b: 21050 Mcclellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 13
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density.

Wonderful site on corner of Stelling and McClellan. No families displaced. Near De Anza College. Near transit. Near grocery shopping, restaurants and other shopping.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:
58:29 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit
Jul 28 22 08:
27:39 pm Happy Near major intersection, college etc
Jul 28 22 08:
48:53 pm Happy
This is an excellent site, right next to DeAnza College and close to shops, bus line, etc. It's on the corner, so does not affect any neighborhoods. A winner.

Jul 29 22 04:
52:49 pm Happy good place for housing
Jul 30 22 08:
54:59 am Happy need more housing in this area to avoid school closures.

Aug 03 22 11:
16:09 am Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
46:02 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
08:19 pm Happy
Could be a helpful for apartments for De Anza students, at least if some at below market rent.

Aug 04 22 12:
01:20 pm Happy
great location to add density due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:
53:37 am Happy
This is a great and large site with transit and high density.

Increase building height to 5 or 6 to create more than 23 units Aug 11 22 06:
36:52 pm Happy
We need more density housing to reduce the cost of units along transit lines, thus crating more "affordable housing for young families. That might also rejuvenate the neigbrhood, and increase the enrollment in our schools, that has shrunk over the years.

Aug 15 22 09:
12:28 am Happy
It's a large site close to the transit center, commercial areas, and good bike access across town. Work with the owner to see if some kind of mixed use is possible so we can have housing and the office space.

Aug 15 22 09:
13:37 am Happy
Aug 15 22 08:
11:25 pm Happy Large site near good transit
Jul 30 22 07:
06:31 pm Unhappy
Way too much traffic at this intersection during commute hours already. Bike safety curbs have made McClellan really narrow and treacherous for cars.

Aug 04 22 06:
09:47 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
12:55 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
13:39 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 02:
28:54 pm Unhappy
This is a high traffic area and at certain times during the day traffic tends to back up on McClellan. High-density housing would increase the traffic in this area.

Aug 16 22 10:
58:02 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:
51:48 pm Unhappy Too many units. Keep as with surrounding area.

K 6c: 7540 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
location can probably only support moderate density (+8 homes) Move to Tier 1. This home can legally built under other housing laws. Can be at least 2 units.

No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
00:13 pm Happy Not a bit site but every little bit helps. Close to transit Jul 28 22 08:
49:59 pm Happy
This change will have minimal impact to the neighborhood, with only a net two new units. It's an easy yes.

Jul 29 22 04:
53:23 pm Happy housing would be good here
Aug 04 22 12:
02:28 pm Happy good proposed density for the site
Aug 05 22 11:
54:31 am Happy
All high transit corridors should have more housing. Increase building height to 4 or 5 to create more units
Aug 11 22 07:
07:28 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 15 22 09:
11:06 am Happy
It'd be sad to see this cute farmhouse go, but if it's replaced by more homes it'll be worth it. This is close to transit, walkable to retail and the library, good bike access to. Consider allowing a 4plex on this site!
Aug 15 22 02:
47:36 pm Neutral
Most of the existing homes are single family, one story homes in this area. Increasing the density to 10-20 would also increase the traffic on McClellan Road, which backs up at times during the day.

Jul 29 22 03:
48:09 pm Unhappy Too much traffic on Mc Clellan at this time Aug 02 22 05:
33:43 pm Unhappy Too much congestion in McClellan
Aug 03 22 08:
55:00 am Unhappy traffic already horrible on this street!!!!! Aug 03 22 08:
55:30 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 11:
20:46 am Unhappy not worth it for a net gain of 2 units Aug 14 22 08:
13:54 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
14:07 pm Unhappy
K 6d: 20920 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density (+29 homes)
Excellent location. No families displaced.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:01:
43 pm Happy Nice large site near transit.

Jul 28 22 08:51:
57 pm Happy
This is a great site for additional housing, as it is diagonal from DeAnza College, and has a bus line right outside and shops very close by. Four stories is fine (it's on a corner) and it's a huge parcel. A definite yes.

Jul 29 22 04:54:
40 pm Happy Near schools, transit, etc. Could be more dense here Aug 04 22 11:20:
03 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:03:
29 pm Happy
good proposed density for the area due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:55:
29 am Happy
All sites within a high transit corridor should have more housing. Increase building height to 5 or 6 to create more than 21 units
Aug 03 22 11:17:
11 am Unhappy Need public transportation plan concurrent with approval.

Aug 03 22 07:44:
52 pm Unhappy
The church and the orchard are important city markers. I would not want them replaced with housing.

Aug 04 22 06:11:
38 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:14:
20 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:14:
32 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 02:50:
20 pm Unhappy Too much traffic in this area without adding more housing.

Aug 16 22 04:56:
01 pm Unhappy
Too many units and too much height. Too much congestion and environmentally destructive.

L 8a: 20666 Cleo Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 3
Unhappy 10
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great location to add density. Close to freeway and retail Move to Tier 1. Increase DU to 30 for 7 homes possible.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:13:
52 pm Happy
It is fine - I like that it will match the density of the houses around it.

Jul 28 22 07:49:
39 pm Happy
Jul 28 22 08:32:
27 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 04:57:
43 pm Happy
this area needs more housing. Schols need students and need to put houses wherever possible
Jul 29 22 06:32:
42 pm Happy
need to put houses wherever possible where schools have room for students
Aug 03 22 03:
11:12 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
09:39 pm Happy
great location do add density due to proximity to freeways and retail
Aug 05 22 12:
16:53 pm Happy
Please utilize this site better and increase the building height to 5 or 6 to create more units
Aug 11 22 09:
18:02 pm Happy
Aug 15 22 09:
20:11 am Happy
Housing fits in with rest of neighborhood and it's great there is owner interest. Look into TDM strategies to mitigate parking demand -- free VTA and Via shuttle passes? Bike storage? E- bike subsidies?
Aug 02 22 09:
58:12 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 05:
54:10 pm Neutral Pretty small.

Aug 16 22 09:
10:15 am Neutral
I think you need to look at existing neighborhood. Will a four story building block existing view and match the neighborhood Jul 28 22 08:37:
35 pm Unhappy
I live in this neighborhood and would not like to see multi-story dwelling over 2 stories high.

Aug 03 22 12:
20:56 pm Unhappy Yes to development, but not nearly as dense as proposed.

Aug 04 22 07:
02:24 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
02:39 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
08:50 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
09:16 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
09:35 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
09:53 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 10:
06:15 pm Unhappy
Parking along Gardenside and surrounding area have been overwhelmed by nearby townhouses and condos. Additional housing units could create over-congested roadways and
hazards for local pedestrians.

Aug 15 22 10:
09:25 pm Unhappy
Increased noise level and traffic. Gardenside is a major access road to Three Oaks Park neighborhood and will increase
amount of traffic. Nearby parking availability is also a major challenge.

L 8b: APN 36231030
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 12
Neutral 1
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great location for higher density housing. Close to freeway and retail (+14 homes) Move to Tier 1. Increase DU to 30 for 7 homes possible.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
16:56 pm Happy
Use of this land makes sense. 4-story is fine, given the proximity to the highway
Jul 28 22 08:
36:00 pm Happy It is near 85 but it is not near a way to get on the freeway.

Jul 29 22 04:
58:14 pm Happy put housing where you can near this area Aug 03 22 03:
11:37 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
01:55 pm Happy empty land
Aug 03 22 05:
52:47 pm Happy Good place to squeeze in a few units.

Aug 03 22 06:
22:21 pm Happy Next to 85. Increase housing
Aug 03 22 07:
50:10 pm Happy Make better use of this vacant parcel
Aug 04 22 12:
10:27 pm Happy great location to add density due to freeway access and shops Aug 05 22 12:
22:04 pm Happy
I would be happier to see a building height of 5 or 6 to create more than six units/condos/townhomes by Hwy 85
Aug 15 22 09:
21:59 am Happy
Good to see housing across from the Habitat for Humanity complex. Main concern would be mitigating freeway noise and pollution, as well as mitigating parking demand. Plant trees along the sound wall? Long term, work with VTA to bring buses back to Rainbow
Aug 16 22 09:
07:30 am Happy
Aug 02 22 09:
30:08 pm Neutral
Jul 28 22 08:
39:37 pm Unhappy
I live in this neighborhood and would not like seeing multi-story dwellings higher than 2 stories.

Aug 02 22 09:
59:56 pm Unhappy Poor location for housing - too close to 85 and noise.

Aug 03 22 11:
19:14 am Unhappy need traffic plan
Aug 15 22 10:
06:43 pm Unhappy
Parking along Gardenside and surrounding area have been overwhelmed by nearby townhouses and condos. Additional housing units could create over-congested roadways and hazards for local pedestrians.

Aug 15 22 10:
10:21 pm Unhappy Too many cars and traffic.

L 8c: 21710 Regnart Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Looks like that parcel can accommodate the housing
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
55:35 pm Happy great. place for high rise. Yes
Jul 28 22 08:
41:08 pm Happy
One issue may be that edge of property is where Regnart creek goes underground. I am not sure if that may factor in as far as the number or size of units one can built there.

Jul 29 22 04:
59:00 pm Happy
this area needs more students and families. good for high dense here
Aug 02 22 10:
00:50 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 03:
12:56 pm Happy
This is prime location as it is close to schools, parks and hiking trails. Increasing density makes sense for more families to be able to live in this area.

Aug 03 22 04:
00:07 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
23:49 pm Happy Large site for more housing
Aug 03 22 07:
51:29 pm Happy
This beautiful property would add more affordable units in the Regnart Lincoln area.

Aug 04 22 12:
11:23 pm Happy good location to add moderate density
Aug 05 22 01:
06:00 pm Happy
Increase the building height to 4 or 5 to create more than two units / condos / townhomes here
Aug 11 22 05:
14:53 pm Happy
it is already surrounded with existing single family homes. new housing can blend in;
Jul 28 22 07:
21:21 pm Neutral It's okay... Kind of out in the middle of nowhere Aug 03 22 12:
25:44 pm Unhappy
Plan claims “similar density” but from map and number of expected units it looks to be at least twice as dense as surrounding area. Development yes; but not as dense as
proposed.

Aug 11 22 02:
44:24 pm Unhappy
This proposal is not similar density. This is a great site for home that complement the surrounding homes. Not a place an
apartment/condo complex that overwhelms Regnant road as entrance to foothills.

L 8d: 21530 Rainbow Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) Move to Tier 1. Need the housing for the buffer without The Hamiltons, which should be removed from this Housing Element.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:43:
48 pm Happy Good place for housing
Jul 29 22 04:59:
27 pm Happy Yes for this area
Aug 02 22 10:
01:54 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 11:
18:07 am Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
25:28 pm Happy Owner interest & compatible
Aug 03 22 07:
52:25 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
12:01 pm Happy good opportunity to add moderate density Aug 15 22 09:
24:15 am Happy
Consider higher density. It's not the most walkable location but it's close to Kennedy and Lincoln schools. Work with VTA to bring a bus route back to Rainbow and Bubb roads
Jul 28 22 07:23:
55 pm Neutral It's nothing special, and way out on the edge of town.

Aug 11 22 02:
46:43 pm Unhappy
This site should be subdivided to build homes similar to surroundings. This is a quiet foothill neighborhood that is safe and secure providing a great transition to beautiful foothills and parkland. Keep new development consistent with current
character.

M 7a: 10857 Linda Vista Dr et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 22
Neutral 5
Unhappy 89
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Yes, great idea. The schools are struggling so additional housing will help. 72 homes in that parcel seems high, but less housing would be good in that area Excellent. No families displaced. The 30 DU will allow for affordable housing.

Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:58:
20 pm Happy good use of this land
Jul 28 22 07:06:
35 pm Happy
I like it because it offers more units, but is not close to transit (that I know of), but I like the density
Jul 28 22 07:49:
02 pm Happy need more housing on this side of town
Jul 28 22 08:53:
56 pm Happy
This is a great site as it is on a culdesac--thus its 'own neighborhood' and provides much-needed housing on the west side. There are several projects like this off Finch Ave, and it would be good to have this on the west side too.

Jul 29 22 04:55:
36 pm Happy People would love this area to live.

Aug 02 22 09:22:
39 pm Happy
Very good location. Near parks, trails, schools. Needs to be upgraded
Aug 02 22 09:49:
21 pm Happy Large site close to schools suitable for multifamily housing.

Aug 02 22 09:55:
01 pm Happy Close to schools suitable for family housing Aug 03 22 10:10:
38 am Happy
I live here and and would love more housing for my friends, for whom there isn't enough housing to live near me!
Aug 03 22 11:03:
24 am Happy Poorly used land convenient to schools.

Aug 03 22 03:09:
19 pm Happy
This is a great place to add density. It's an attractive location with schools and parks nearby. It will give more families to live in this area.

Aug 03 22 07:53:
36 pm Happy
Higher density would provide more affordable options in this neighborhood
Aug 03 22 10:03:
17 pm Happy
Good use of the area. I like the 3 story limitation for an area like this.

Aug 04 22 12:05:
12 pm Happy Great opportunity to add density to this location Aug 05 22 12:02:
05 pm Happy
This large cul de sac could have a building height of 4 or 5 to include more than 30 units / condos / town homes
Aug 14 22 12:14:
35 pm Happy
We cannot ignore the housing shortage, and currently this land is for all practical purposes simply providing open space and an opportunity for the lone crane to visit during the rainy season. It is common sense to develop it.

Aug 14 22 04:27:
52 pm Happy
It makes sense to put housing there. However, current plan is far too dense for the neighborhood.

Aug 14 22 05:57:
59 pm Happy
More high density housing would hopefully help the the
housing problem, and attract new families with kids to the amazing local schools.

Aug 14 22 07:50:
09 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 14 22 08:31:
13 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 14 22 09:41:
41 pm Happy
The area is lack of maintenance for long long time. The community should renovate this area to either fit in more residents, or convert to community center to better serve the neighborhood.

Aug 15 22 02:00:
55 pm Happy
Large area on an enclosed cul de sac. Provides 73 units, which does not seem overwhelming of the area.

Aug 03 22 08:11:
05 pm Neutral
The site is long overdue for housing, but 30 units/acre is unrealistic to the point of absurdity, more so at one of the least accessible addresses in the city. Disparity with surroundings seems certain to create animosity, both ways, with no
mitigations.

Aug 14 22 09:29:
00 pm Neutral Don’t live in the area.

Aug 16 22 12:19:
32 pm Neutral
Limit the units for this site because it's close to 3 schools and the traffic is already very, very heavy due to limited street access in the neighborhood. Plan for 72 units is insane and clog up our streets and create dangerous traffic patterns..

Aug 16 22 04:42:
36 pm Neutral
Only consistent with surrounding housing; single family with limited of 2-story and not less than 8,000 square feet lot.

Aug 17 22 05:02:
57 pm Neutral
Cupertino needs more housing. It will be a change and
change is hard, but it is silly to have a huge vacant lot there and it will be good for our schools to have more students. I suggest that we start with one or two of the sections, and the rest woul
Jul 29 22 03:49:
48 pm Unhappy Environmental impact on wildlife and water use Aug 03 22 10:25:
54 am Unhappy
Doesn't make sense to add that much density here with single family homes
Aug 03 22 12:05:
32 pm Unhappy
Seems like this is a good location for less dense housing than proposed while still providing more housing than now exists which is zero. The owner of this property obviously resisted any development for decades. Don’t give a windfall to
him/her/heirs(??)
Aug 03 22 07:30:
26 pm Unhappy
I don't understand the urban planning goal to put 70 units way out on Linda Vista Dr. with no public transit and no services such as grocery stores. Three story units and added traffic near Kennedy Middle will be bad as well.

Aug 04 22 06:05:
53 am Unhappy Way too dense
Aug 04 22 07:01:
38 am Unhappy Too many housing units for already crowded school Aug 04 22 11:06:
14 am Unhappy this area already has too many traffic problems Aug 11 22 02:41:
29 pm Unhappy
Overbuilds in neighborhood against foothills. Subdivision to smaller single family home would be more appropriate. Three stories would loom over neighbors and park. Keep to two stories with individual homes consisted with surroundings.

Aug 11 22 02:50:
28 pm Unhappy
Addition of single story condos seems reasonable for the look of the neighborhood. Multi-story, especially 3-story buildings would seriously detract from the look and feel of the area and may cause traffic congestion
Aug 14 22 04:19:
58 pm Unhappy
Why would you build 3 story buildings looking into bedrooms of existing houses? This neighborhood is all single family homes and a large building(s) would not fit the existing neighborhood. 70+ units will increase already high car speed on Linda Vista.

Aug 14 22 04:20:
58 pm Unhappy This is and should stay single family homes Aug 14 22 04:23:
53 pm Unhappy
We don't need 3 story housing looking into people back yards or blocking existing views of the hill sides. There is a lot of wildlife that comes into the field from golf course. I bought my house for views. 2 story should be max height
Aug 14 22 04:26:
03 pm Unhappy
three story houses do not fit this neighborhood, too many more cards, too much speeding, dangerous for cyclists
Aug 14 22 04:28:
14 pm Unhappy
Three story houses are too much and more cars would be
dangerous as many bikers use the road.

Aug 14 22 04:37:
03 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 04:37:
06 pm Unhappy This will look into our house and backyard Aug 14 22 04:41:
00 pm Unhappy
It will block the light into our house, it will increase traffic, it will reduce our privacy , it will be unsafe for bike trail traffic, it will affect wild life in the area as the lot is very inviting for wildlife, several trees will be torn
Aug 14 22 04:42:
37 pm Unhappy
Three stories seems too high, especially at 10887 since they would be overlooking existing max. 2 story homes. There is nothing that tall in the existing neighborhood. From 5 units to 75 units is shocking.

Aug 14 22 04:43:
42 pm Unhappy
Too close to our property- that is not why we purchased in this zone
Aug 14 22 04:45:
45 pm Unhappy
Too many trees will be knocked down , too much local wildlife affected, increased pollution, increased traffic, reduce privacy for surrounding homes
Aug 14 22 04:47:
08 pm Unhappy It is completely unfair to live people around it.

Aug 14 22 04:55:
07 pm Unhappy
This is not a smart idea, why would you change the zoning. It was zoned that way for a good reason
Aug 14 22 05:16:
43 pm Unhappy
The area doesn't need high density housing, leave the zoning as it is.

Aug 14 22 05:25:
34 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 05:48:
53 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:00:
36 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:02:
13 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:03:
44 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:20:
03 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:45:
59 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:12:
20 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:46:
46 pm Unhappy
I’m completely opposed to this proposal. The density is too high, that will ruin the neighborhood’s calm and quiet aura.

Adding that many residential lots will cause excessive traffic Aug 14 22 07:52:
26 pm Unhappy
Cupertino is already overly developed and has too many
apartments/condos/townhomes/duplex
Aug 14 22 07:56:
04 pm Unhappy Out of character for the neighborhood.

Aug 14 22 08:00:
37 pm Unhappy
More housing means more population which changes the
nature balance and causes pollution
Aug 14 22 08:09:
49 pm Unhappy
Don’t want high density housing in the middle of low density neighborhood that will increase auto traffic and parking spill over into the neighborhood streets.

Aug 14 22 08:40:
15 pm Unhappy
The roads around schools are very congested as such. Every now and then we hear about scary accidents. Secondly, Linda vista park is peaceful and serene. My family and I go there to relax, with multi housing units right next to it, it will change.

Aug 14 22 08:59:
56 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:10:
39 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
02 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
21 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
36 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
49 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
51 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
58 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:13:
22 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:13:
52 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 10:16:
43 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 10:23:
37 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 07:08:
14 am Unhappy
Aug 15 22 08:01:
08 am Unhappy
I have lived in the neighborhood for over 25 years. I support development and adding affordable housing. But, this property can not support that many units. Density is too great.. 3 stories is out of character. No room for cars and parking.

Aug 15 22 09:34:
58 am Unhappy There is no need to rezone
Aug 15 22 10:06:
41 am Unhappy
Aug 15 22 10:30:
20 am Unhappy
Can’t be anything more than single family houses. No
apartments or condos. Alternatively this could be used as a dog park.

Aug 15 22 12:26:
22 pm Unhappy
Three story building do not fit in the neighborhood. Traffic from 72 units would overwhelm Linda Vista Dr, which is a quiet neighborhood street,. Paring on Linda Vista may be an issue.

Noise and congestion will also be a problem.

Aug 15 22 03:13:
19 pm Unhappy
This area is part of a very small neighborhood that would be significantly impacted by the amount of traffic that would be generated by the large number of units.

Aug 15 22 05:18:
32 pm Unhappy
It’s too dense for this residential area. Parking and traffic will be an issue.

Aug 15 22 06:00:
05 pm Unhappy
We need to preserve privacy and air for our residents and stop building high density housing. Plus, closing schools and increasing housing are competing trends. I’d like to see more progressive leadership from Cupertino.

Aug 15 22 07:41:
09 pm Unhappy
High density housing ought to be located close to high capacity traffic corridors rather than located several stop signs and 25 mph streets away from expressways and freeways.

Neighborhood was already the location of a tragic vehicle bike accident.

Aug 15 22 08:24:
50 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 08:36:
56 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 10:21:
17 pm Unhappy Apartments in the middle
Aug 16 22 08:42:
18 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 09:06:
23 am Unhappy
I'm not big on three story housing in this area. Most of the homes here are single to two stories.

Aug 16 22 10:29:
33 am Unhappy
School traffic already makes commute very hard. High density housing will cause intolerable congestion. Please consider normal density housing.

Aug 16 22 10:42:
33 am Unhappy
We live on Baxley court off of Linda Vista very close to the said site. It is going to be a traffic night mare. Needless to say it violates the zoning and bring down the value of our property and locality. This is a beautiful part of cupertino which will Aug 16 22 10:43:
44 am Unhappy It is going to be a traffic night mare.

Aug 16 22 10:45:
37 am Unhappy It is going to be a traffic nightmare.

Aug 16 22 11:09:
47 am Unhappy
High density housing is going to be very problematic in this area, including high-rise buildings. This area will be
overcrowded.

Aug 16 22 11:10:
37 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:11:
18 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
22 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
41 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
59 am Unhappy Traffic will be a nightmare.

Aug 16 22 11:19:
02 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 12:13:
47 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 12:55:
54 pm Unhappy
An addition of 72 units will create dangerous traffic, especially for street access to our 3 nearby schools (Lincoln, Kennedy, MV).

Aug 16 22 01:20:
01 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 02:26:
45 pm Unhappy
Proposed density is too high for the neighborhood. It would triple the number of cars, causing traffic safety issues. A lower housing density may work, for example 12 new units..

Aug 16 22 02:37:
20 pm Unhappy It will become noisy and add additional traffic.

Aug 16 22 02:44:
03 pm Unhappy
Proposed density is too high to keep traffic and pollution to an acceptable level
Aug 16 22 04:06:
58 pm Unhappy This entire area is single family with lots averaging 8000 s.f.

Aug 16 22 04:10:
16 pm Unhappy
This area is already overly congested with the three schools within a block of one another.

Aug 16 22 04:54:
38 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:55:
38 pm Unhappy Traffic nightmare
Aug 16 22 06:25:
55 pm Unhappy Too much traffic, too high and too many units. Parking issues.

Aug 16 22 07:56:
39 pm Unhappy IAm
Aug 17 22 07:07:
31 am Unhappy
Aug 17 22 01:37:
59 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 12:19:
49 pm
Developing the property is simple common sense. However, the current #'s proposed are too aggressive. 72 units on 2.5 acres? Pretty dense for a neighborhood of 1 and 2 story single family homes. I would recommend 2 story height limitation.

Aug 14 22 08:10:
54 pm
M 7b: 22381 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 15
Neutral 3
Unhappy 10
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) This is located near a hairpin curve on McClellan Rd. Keep on Tier 2 or remove.

Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
06:59:29
pm Happy improving this site will increase property values Jul 28 22
08:19:20
pm Happy How about a duplex?
Jul 28 22
08:55:13
pm Happy
But it sounds like it will not be getting future housing as the expected units is zero. So I'm not sure why this is on the list.

Jul 29 22
04:56:36
pm Happy
This area needs more housing - so as many units as allowed.

Handy to all schools
Aug 02 22
09:50:49
pm Happy
Aug 02 22
09:55:57
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
11:05:38
am Happy
Aug 03 22
03:10:36
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
08:21:57
pm Happy
Much better location than "Monta-Vista-North 7a" for increased density (more consistent w/ neighboring units, better access [corridor potential]), though even here designation of >10 units/acre looks unsustainably aggressive w/o significant new planning.

Aug 03 22
10:05:06
pm Happy Sounds like a good plan for this site.

Aug 04 22
12:06:26
pm Happy This site could be used to build medium density (4-plex) Aug 05 22
12:03:13
pm Happy
I would be even more happy to see a building height of 4 or 5 to create more than two units / condos / townhomes
Aug 14 22
12:15:57
pm Happy Simply makes sense.

Aug 14 22
04:28:43
pm Happy Why not?
Aug 15 22
09:27:10
am Happy Close to schools and commercial area on Stevens Canyon Road.

Jul 28 22
07:08:39
pm Neutral No strong views, not sure what we get from this one Aug 03 22
12:16:08
pm Neutral
No new units anticipated?? Then why the need to rezone? Or what are you hiding behind “for this analysis”? We will rezone and then do an new analysis to add units???
Aug 16 22
10:26:28
am Neutral The site doesn’t seem large enough for more units Jul 28 22
06:56:34
pm Unhappy
Area is single family housing and multi family, crowded housing will not fit in. There are duplexes nearby, so duplex would be okay Jul 29 22
03:50:47
pm Unhappy Need for privacy in the atea
Aug 03 22
10:33:31
am Unhappy
Aug 03 22
07:36:11
pm Unhappy
I don't understand the urban planning goal of putting 20 units on McClellan with no public transit and no services like grocery stores.

More units along Stevens Creek Blvd. (at the Oaks?) or on DeAnza Blvd. (convert commercial to condo) make more sense.

Aug 04 22
06:05:06
am Unhappy
Aug 04 22
11:05:40
am Unhappy this area already has too many traffic problems Aug 11 22
09:17:24
pm Unhappy Why not three?
Aug 14 22
07:53:52
pm Unhappy Traffic
Aug 14 22
08:31:51
pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22
07:39:01
pm Unhappy
This is in stark contrast with neighboring 1and 2 story residences. I am concerned about a huge increase in traffic on our quiet neighborhood.

N 13a: 21431 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 4
Unhappy 12
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
200
This site is ideal for student housing. It's close to De Anza College and within walking distance of transportation. Add more units by maybe doing shared kitchens/facilities and make it affordable. Possibly requiring residents to be students at De Anza? WHY is this the only site near Bubb Rd? The whole Bubb Rd from Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan should be on this list. It would help increase local school populations (K-Community College). Add large ground ground floor retail to the sites large enough for a pharmacy/drug store, grocery, produce market, office supply store for students. (+10 homes)
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density. Close to De Anza college Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:
57:47 pm Happy
This is near De Anza College. Would be good for
teacher/students. Could be Studios or dorms. Other sites which now are office/light industry sights on Bubb road should be considered/persued
Jul 28 22 07:
36:31 pm Happy Makes sense, close to 85. Good use of land Jul 28 22 07:
53:38 pm Happy do as dense as possible for college kids and low income Jul 29 22 05:
04:45 pm Happy
perfect spot for low income housing - gearing towards students.

Needed badly
Jul 29 22 06:
35:11 pm Happy handy place to have lots of housing. near transit and schools Aug 03 22 10:
29:51 am Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
49:03 pm Happy
Closer to employment for some. Additional housing near this side of Cupertino
Aug 03 22 10:
01:19 pm Happy
This is prime location for more housing. Near schools, close to De Anza. It will be attractive to have more housing here.

Aug 04 22 12:
16:59 pm Happy good location to add density close to De Anza college Aug 05 22 01:
20:32 pm Happy
Sites near high transit like Hwy 85 should have more housing.

Increase building height to six stories to create more than 23 units
Aug 15 22 05:
14:12 pm Happy
An opportunity for a homeowner to cash out - big time - and build a very tall development next to the freeway.

Jul 03 22 03:
45:37 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 05:
41:38 pm Neutral
This is definitely more of a borderline high density sight. Maybe Townhouses (2 stories). Something that fits in better. Lower height may be good with the 85 road noise (so not so far above the adjacent sound wall).

Aug 04 22 11:
17:03 am Neutral
Aug 14 22 08:
45:34 pm Neutral Traffic
Jul 29 22 12:
43:12 pm Unhappy
Would be an additional traffic hazard on McClellan. Extremely narrow road that has barriers to protect bicycle riders, and presently has very heavy traffic.

Jul 29 22 03:
46:18 pm Unhappy
Too much traffic on Bubb road now; we don’t need more density here
Jul 31 22 12:
58:46 pm Unhappy
That area is needed for light industrial development to diversify Cupertino's business.

Aug 03 22 11:
20:36 am Unhappy traffic plan needed
Aug 06 22 03:
34:52 pm Unhappy Will add to traffic nightmare on Bubb road Aug 06 22 03:
36:22 pm Unhappy Doesn’t fit with the nieghborhoid
Aug 14 22 08:
03:34 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:11 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:32 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:48 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 10:
57:07 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:
47:26 pm Unhappy
Already too congested. Townhouses only and limited to 2-story with covered parking.

O 4a: 10860 Maxine Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 13
Neutral 0
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
great place to add density. close to freeways (+6 homes) No comment (+8 homes)
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:39:41 pmHappy Yes this makes sense. Plenty of area and close to transit Jul 28 22 07:41:54 pmHappy ok for this area
Jul 28 22 08:45:26 pmHappy
It's a nice size parcel, and with keeping the height low, it won't be as loud as the Mary Ave ROW project. We need the homes, and this is a viable spot.

Jul 29 22 04:49:46 pmHappy
ok for ths area. More stories would be good could add more units
Jul 29 22 06:29:57 pmHappy ok for this area
Aug 03 22 01:09:37 pmHappy good in fill location
Aug 03 22 03:05:54 pmHappy
This looks like a good place with easy access to the freeways and Homestead Ave. Opportunity to add 12 units is great.

Aug 03 22 10:11:20 pmHappy
It's in a residential area, but it has good access to highway 85 via homestead so that's helpful.

Aug 04 22 07:30:36 amHappy
Aug 04 22 12:08:23 pmHappy
I would like to see higher density here (more stories) due to proximity to freeway and stores
Aug 05 22 11:50:49 amHappy
Please designate new zoning and increase the building height to 4 or 5 stories to better utilize this site
Aug 11 22 02:20:49 pmHappy
This is a great site, mostly wasted space. BUT VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. ALSO CRIME, SINCE IT IS
SO CLOSE TO MAJOR STREETS/HIGHWAY.

Aug 14 22 08:39:19 pmHappy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 03 22 11:13:15 amUnhappy Need public transportation plan to accompany this project.

Aug 03 22 06:42:17 pm
P 1a: 10231 Adriana Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 26
Neutral 4
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
EVERYWHERE where you specify number of stories, please replace with ACTUAL MAX HEIGHT IN FEET! Stories vary tremendously. Make this requirement objective and consistent everywhere! Like the density here. Can it reasonably hold more?
Traffic on Stevens Creek is already bad -- why make it worse? Do not see how you can fit 13 homes in an established single family residential neighborhood. These homes would be on the railroad tracks
great location to add density. (+20 houses)
It is hard to tell from the map if this is causing displacement. If it is, Please remove it from the list. If not, then Increase the density and approve the owner for up to 30 du to allow for affordable housing.

Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:17:17 pmHappy Looks like a great site near transit and services Jul 28 22 06:55:37 pmHappy we need housing
Jul 28 22 07:34:01 pmHappy need more housing there
Jul 28 22 07:43:41 pmHappy do dense
Jul 28 22 08:37:16 pm
Happy
This is an area will only single family housing, and could use some diversity in types of housing to meet the needs of all residents.

Jul 29 22 04:41:15 pmHappy good site. Would go up in levels for more density, if possible.

Near bus and major streets
Jul 29 22 06:27:39 pmHappy good here
Jul 31 22 09:00:45 pmHappy Already residential, so increasing density has minimal impact Aug 02 22 07:22:57 pmHappy
Aug 03 22 10:27:45 amHappy
Aug 03 22 11:07:48 amHappy
Aug 03 22 11:14:08 amHappy
Aug 03 22 12:27:19 pmHappy
Aug 03 22 02:58:38 pm
Happy
This will be a neat place to live. There are a few restaurants around this area. The freeway is close by, easy to commute to work.

Aug 03 22 06:28:20 pmHappy Large site
Aug 04 22 07:08:35 amHappy
Aug 04 22 10:59:54 amHappy
Aug 04 22 11:01:58 amHappy looks like a good use of land that is not already crowded Aug 04 22 11:53:36 amHappy good density for the area
Aug 05 22 11:43:49 amHappy Adding density to this large site makes sense. Please add more than the 13 suggested units
Aug 11 22 2:18:31 PMHappy Plenty of space if creatively designed Aug 15 22 7:47:03 PMHappy Reasonably consistent with existing area and close to arteries.

Aug 15 22 8:14:55 PMHappy Location near transit and freeway Aug 16 22 9:00:08 AMHappy You should make this three stories as it butts up against the train tracks
Aug 16 22 10:31:24 AMHappy
Aug 16 22 10:31:51 AMHappy
Jul 28 22 07:40:48 pmNeutral ok for this area
Aug 02 22 09:26:41 pmNeutral
Aug 03 22 06:38:29 pmNeutral I am not familiar with this site and do not live near this neighborhood.

Aug 03 22 10:16:02 pmNeutral A challenge with this site is the road access is not the best. Might be OK.

Aug 11 22 3:06:12 PMUnhappy
that end of stevens creek blvd is so hard to turn in and out of from side streets. drivers speed down the hill from either direction, unsafe and unpleasant.

Aug 14 22 7:59:19 PMUnhappy
Aug 14 22 8:34:20 PMUnhappy Traffic
Aug 16 22 5:05:44 PMUnhappy
This area is extremely congested. Navigating to Stevens Creek Blvd, 280 and 85 already a nightmare. What are the City's plan for relief of ingress and egress?
Jul 28 22 09:00:43 pm Looks like a great site near transit and services P 1b: 22273 Cupertino Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 17
Neutral 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Can this site hold more than 10 units? It's very close to Sunnyview Assisted Living and it's in school areas that have low enrollment. Workers at Sunnyview could live here if units were affordable.

Traffic on Stevens Creek is already bad -- why make it worse? How can you put 10 houses on existing single family home site great location to add density.

Increase the density and approve the owner for up to 30 du to allow for affordable housing.

Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:22:39 pmHappy Looks like a great way to use the space. Walking distance to transit
Jul 28 22 07:50:27 pmHappy dense here
Jul 28 22 08:38:18 pm
Happy
This is a huge site, and still will be very low density with only two story houses. It will fit the character of the neighborhood and provide much needed housing.

Jul 29 22 04:43:43 pmHappy good - could add density here Jul 29 22 06:28:13 pmHappy
Jul 31 22 09:02:41 pmHappy Already residential, so additional housing fits the neighborhool Aug 03 22 11:08:08 amHappy
Aug 03 22 11:14:33 amHappy
Aug 03 22 03:00:24 pm
Happy
This is a great opportunity to add density. It's close to school so it will be attractive to young families. Their kids can walk to school and also play in the park nearby. I live in this neighborhood and think it will be great to have more housing.

Aug 03 22 06:31:19 pmHappy Large site
Aug 03 22 10:16:44 pmHappy With the limitations this seems like a good plan.

Aug 04 22 11:54:12 amHappy good density for the location Aug 11 22 3:07:41 PM
Happy
quiet neighborhood with multiple outlets are good; don't need to solely rely on stevens creek blvd and can void the big
slopes/crazy drivers when turning in and out
Aug 12 22 1:19:01 PM
Happy
I currently live directly next to this area (10055 Carmen Rd) and I think that it is a great location for more density. The area is pleasant and not at all overcrowded. This one lot is a waste of land as is, would love for some density here.

Aug 14 22 8:35:20 PMHappy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 15 22 7:48:09 PMHappy Consistent with existing scale Aug 16 22 10:31:35 AMHappy
Aug 03 22 12:28:01 pmNeutral I would be happier with a 3-story max Aug 03 22 06:35:14 pmNeutral I am not familiar with the site and do not live in this neighborhood.

Aug 04 22 07:13:47 amNeutral
Aug 11 22 2:19:14 PMNeutral Worried about additional traffic through this neighborhood.

Aug 15 22 8:16:19 PMNeutral Looks like access to this housing would be very limited.

Aug 16 22 9:03:05 AMNeutral Seems like a bottle neck to get into area Aug 03 22 12:39:04 pmUnhappy Too dense. Too many trees will be removed. Yes to some additional units but not what is proposed.

P 1c: 10050 N Foothill Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
INCLUDE THIS SITE in the HOUSING ELEMENT!!!
WHY is this site NOT listed on the "Final Excel for CC 7-21-22.pdf" spreadsheet? WHY is this site NOT listed on the "Narrative for City Council Sites Overview.pdf"? This site is ideal for housing. It has access to transportation (bus runs right by there!). It is in an area where schools are struggling. It is near Sunnyview Assisted Living and Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness (near Monta Vista Park) so workers could walk to work. It's flat so there's no hillside issues.

Traffic on Foothill is already bad -- why make it worse? Looks like converting excess office space to housing not a bad idea great location to add density.

Change the DU to 30 (times .62 acres) to allow for 18 homes.

Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:25:54 pm
Happy
Very close to transit. Good use of space (though not sure what current building is used for. Don't want it to be mere displacement)
Jul 28 22 08:40:05 pm
Happy
This is along a relatively busy road, Foothill, which eventually becomes high speed. It's an idea place for more housing, and three stories even seems low. I would recommend higher, such as 5.

Jul 29 22 02:40:08 pmHappy
Jul 29 22 04:44:49 pmHappy good location for transit and can accomodate more density. Go higher
Aug 02 22 07:40:02 pmHappy Please retain the veterinary office next to this property Aug 03 22 12:26:59 pmHappy
Aug 03 22 02:57:08 pm
Happy
I live in this neighborhood and feel it's a great place to live. If young families can move in to this area, it will also help with the low enrollment problem our elementary schools are facing.

Aug 03 22 06:32:55 pmHappy Near foothill
Aug 03 22 06:41:16 pmHappy I think this site right near Foothill Expressway would be a good place for affordable housing.

Aug 03 22 10:17:27 pmHappy Good plan with the limit of 3 stories.

Aug 04 22 11:01:13 amHappy looks like a good use of land that is not already crowded Aug 04 22 11:55:14 amHappy good density for the location Aug 11 22 2:17:24 PMHappy Good access to site from existing streets.

Aug 11 22 9:13:29 PMHappy
The area is sparsely populated. Should increase to more stories? Consider the development near 1st street in Los Altos. It is a good example
Aug 12 22 1:22:00 PMHappy
I live right around the corner from this, it would be a great place to build more density. Lots of amenities in short biking (or long walking) distance. The density in this area is very low when housing is as expensive as it is. Need market rate units.

Aug 14 22 8:35:56 PMHappy Need to meet housing element required by state.

Aug 16 22 9:04:24 AMHappy
Aug 16 22 10:32:04 AMHappy
Jul 28 22 06:56:48 pmNeutral traffic on foothill is already dense, adding housing here would make that worse
Jul 31 22 09:04:18 pmUnhappy This should allow mixed use, not just housing.

Aug 03 22 11:09:18 amUnhappy Proposal seems too dense